Search results

Two types of opportunism, managerial and competitive, are described. Contractual covenants that control these types of opportunism are used when they are likely to occur, i.e., when there are obstacles to monitoring management behavior and when returns to starting new firms are large. These ideas are subjected to empirical test. The relationship between managers in new firms and venture capitalists is receiving increased attention in the literature (Norton and Tenenbaum 1990; Sahlman, 1988). The determinants and implications of several attributes of these relationships have been examined, including the percentage of a new firm's equity held by venture capitalists, the number of seats on the board controlled by venture capitalists, and the post‐funding activities of venture capitalists (e.g., helping the new firm raise additional capital, contacting customers, replacing management) (Barney, Busenitz, Fiet, and Moesel, 1989). While our understanding of the relationship between managers in new firms and venture capitalists is growing, one particularly important component of that relationship has yet to receive significant attention in the literature: the details of the formal contractual arrangement between managers in a new firm and venture capitalists. Often called the “terms and conditions” of the relationship between managers and venture capitalists, these contractual details specify the rights and obligations of both managers and venture capitalists throughout their entire relationship in a series of covenants (Fiet, 1991). Among other items, contractual covenants can specify limits on capital expenditures, limits on managerial salaries, limitations on raising additional outside capital, technology non‐disclosure agreements, and conditions for forcing a change in managing and liquidating the deal. The purpose of this paper is to understand the determinants of the formal contractual arrangements between managers in new firms and venture capitalists.

Why do some ventures grow to become dominant market players while most new ventures that do not fail limp along more modest trajectories? In comparison with our knowledge regarding determinants of venture creation or survival, the phenomenon of venture growth has been relatively neglected, both theoretically and empirically. Venture growth is a multi-level phenomenon co-occurring at different analytical and temporal levels. In this chapter we develop a theoretical model that accounts for venture growth as a process, drawing upon the mechanism-based theorizing approach. We offer nine social mechanisms that lead to venture growth, providing a foundation for empirical exploration and further theory building.

Creative destruction “revolutionises the economic structure from within”, Joseph Schumpeter famously said, “incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one”. Innovation in business – bringing new goods, new markets, new methods of production, new ways of organising firms – is the “fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion” (Schumpeter, 1975, p. 83). Does the economy have enough flexibility? Are there barriers in the way of entrepreneurship? This paper develops a framework for quantifying creative destruction.

International new ventures have been argued to seek foreign markets from inception in response to the external environment and/or motivations internal to the firm. For example, a new venture that exists in an industry that is more globally integrated is more likely to have a need to internationalize in order to remain competitive (Shrader, Oviatt, & McDougall, 2000). Similarly, those new ventures that have limited domestic growth due to the size of their home country may look elsewhere in order to gain a sufficient level of sales to survive (Zahra & George, 2002). Some of the many firm-specific motivations to internationalize might include the desire to fully exploit a unique product (Burgel & Murray, 2000; Oviatt & McDougall, 1994, 1995), capitalize on the learning advantage of newness (Autio, Sapienza, & Almeida, 2000) or take advantage of networking opportunities (Reuber & Fischer, 1997).

This study aims to focus on a key unanswered question about how digitalization and the knowledge processes it enables affect firms’ strategies in the international arena.

The authors conduct a systematic literature review of relevant theoretical and empirical studies covering over 20 years of research (from 2000 to 2023) and including 73 journal papers.

This review allows us to highlight a relationship between firms’ international strategies and the knowledge processes enabled by applying digital technologies. Specifically, the authors discuss the characteristics of patterns of knowledge flows and knowledge processes (their origin, the type of knowledge they carry on and their directionality) as determinants for the emergence of diverse international strategies embraced by single firms or by populations of firms within ecosystems, networks, global value chains or alliances.

Despite digital technologies constituting important antecedents and critical factors for the internationalization process, and international businesses in general, and operating cross borders implies the enactment of highly knowledge-intensive processes, current literature still fails to provide a holistic picture of how firms strategically use what they know and seek out what they do not know in the international environment, using the affordances of digital technologies.

The purpose of this study is to explore how new firms enter a new industry and which structure will support survival. Essentially, the study examines the extent to which new firms choose to be broad with regard to the industry supply chain and deep with regard to their market presence. Based on these two structural decisions, each one is examined independently and in conjunction to discover which aspects support survival.

A quantitative approach was adopted, consisting of using data supplied by the state of Colorado. More specifically, the study draws on empirical data that identifies which license type (grower, manufacturer and retailer) each firm chose to get and how many retail outlets the firm chose to operate.

The findings reveal that firms that cover the breadth of the supply chain are twice as likely to survive, while a broad market presence increases the risk of exit by 2.5 times. When the two factors were combined, it was firms with broad integration and deep market presence that had the highest chance of survival, as opposed to firms with intuition. A deep market presence seemed to accentuate the effect of integration, increasing the risk when the firm was not integrated, while increasing the survival rate when the firm was integrated.

This industry is quite new and afforded a unique opportunity to examine the impact of firm structure on survival. However, it may not be generalizable to other industries.

The present analysis argues that firms must adopt a holistic approach to their firm structure, because there are combinatorial effects at play. That is, while one specific strategy may increase survival, other strategies may impact firm survival. Examining and understanding the interplay of firm decisions are critical for firm survival.

Because of the lack of the formation of new industries, the authors’ understanding of the impact of firm structure on survival is limited. This unique context afforded the opportunity to empirically examine how firms can increase their chance of survival based on two aspects of firm structure: the breadth of the supply chain and the depth of the firm’s market presence.

New venture status is the most prominent feature of entrepreneurial startups, but its performance implications have remained under-studied. This study aims to bridge this knowledge void and offer precise guidelines for startup managers in boosting performance.

The study develops and tests a multi-perspective model on the linkage between new venture status and firm performance by integrating I/O economics, resource-based view and dynamic capability perspective. The arguments from the first two perspectives point to an adverse effect of new venture status, which is contingent, respectively, on business differentiation and resource endowments. The third perspective grounds a positive relationship between new venture status and performance, which is more pronounced for firms with weaker dynamic capabilities.

Quantitative evidence from a sample of new and established firms in China shows that the direct effect of new venture status is negative but insignificant. Neither business differentiation nor dynamic capabilities moderate the relationship. Low resource endowments, however, reinforce the negative influence of new venture status. New venture status, thus, shapes firm performance through resource scarcity from resource-based view rather than competitive vulnerability from I/O economics or strategic flexibility from dynamic capability perspective.

Newness and new venture performance have both been extensively examined in literature. But the relationship between them has remained largely omitted. The multi-perspective model and the findings in this study help clarify the confusion as to whether newness is good or bad in the context of an emerging market and reveals the subtle mechanism the effect of newness unfolds.

The purpose of this paper is to examine product failures in the consumer technology products industry to explain why some firms experience more aesthetic-related failures than others.

The study uses a unique data set of failed high technology consumer products identified by expert product reviewers of 75 online magazines during 2000-2010. The variables are constructed using two coders as well as using an automated content analysis process based on the information provided in the online product reviews. The study tests a hypothesis using multilevel logistic regression techniques on a sample of 606 product reviews of 323 products associated with 171 firms.

The study demonstrates that older firms are much more susceptible than younger firms to suffer from aesthetic-related product failures when they pursue product innovations that are new for them. Likewise, older firms suffer fewer aesthetics-related product failures than younger firms when they exploit products that well known to them.

The study is highly novel in its research setting and empirical approach, and brings valuable insights for researchers and managers regarding challenges associated with aesthetic innovations for young and old firms.